I believe IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard both Bob Enyart and Fred Williams argue that theistic evolution is not Biblically sound because it would entail lots of animal death occurring before AdamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fall. I know IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard Ken Ham use that argument.

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m not particularly fond of theistic evolution, but IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢d like to discuss why I think this line of reasoning doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fit the bill. I think there are much better arguments for why TE runs into problems with a plain interpretation of Scripture.

The central scripture used from the creationist perspective is Romans 5:12 Ã¢â‚¬Å“Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sinÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â First, I want to make it clear that this verse specifically goes on to say that the result of AdamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sin was that Ã¢â‚¬Å“death spread to all men.Ã¢â‚¬Â It doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say that AdamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s sin brought death to all the animals. This passage has nothing to do with animal death and it is not honest to use this verse as proof that animals didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t die until Adam sinned.

I want to make a few brief comments about what the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“deathÃ¢â‚¬Â means in the Bible, especially in this context. Overwhelmingly, I believe that when death is referenced to sin, it is talking about a spiritual death Ã¢â‚¬â€œ not a ceasing of bodily functions. In the same token, the new Ã¢â‚¬Å“lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â of being Ã¢â‚¬Å“born againÃ¢â‚¬Â doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have anything to do with increased bodily functions, but with our spirits being made alive to God and united with Him. I think this makes sense when you read GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s warning to Adam against eating the fruit Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.Ã¢â‚¬ÂIf God meant physical death, He was a liar, because Adam didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t physically die on the same day that he ate the fruit. On the other hand, there was a spiritual aspect of Adam that died that day Ã¢â‚¬â€œ that of relationship with God without boundaries. God didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do anything to change the lifespan of man until much later, during NoahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s days.

Now, let me make a very practical argument for why I think there was animal death before Adam sinned. The central scripture against carnivorous animals is Genesis 1:30 Ã¢â‚¬Å“to every thing that moves on the earth which has life, I have given every green plant for food.Ã¢â‚¬Â I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think this is a comprehensive treatise on the diets of early animals. It says the reason God made plants was for a source of food. It should seem obvious, though, that this wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t the sole source of food for every creature. First, there are bacteria that use photosynthesis for energy. They Ã¢â‚¬Å“move on the earthÃ¢â‚¬Â and they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t eat plants. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll jump to a larger species. Do you really think baleen whales survived on a diet of seaweed or algae? It seems obvious that their teeth were designed to filter krill from the water. It is physically impossible for most species of large whales to swim into shallow enough water where seaweed grows to eat it. There are other ocean creatures who make their home in very deep dark waters where no sea plants can grow Ã¢â‚¬â€œ such as angler fish. Again, it seems obvious that the bioluminescent dangle of the angler fish is designed by God to assist it in hunting for other fish!

Evidence of a predatorial world is also seen in the complex defense mechanisms of many creatures. Why were skunks created with stinky spray? Why were echidnas and porcupines created with defensive armor? Why are many animals created with elaborate camouflage mechanisms? The obvious answer is that they needed to defend themselves against larger predators. This was part of GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s original Garden of Eden plan.

I find it terribly odd to believe that the complex circle of life and a detailed carnivorous ecosystem was the result of the fall of Adam. FrogÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s tongues were designed to eat flies, not flowers. Same goes for anteaters tongues. Do you really think T-Rex was designed with 3 inch spiked teeth to nibble tree leaves? IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard some creationists admit that some animals ate bugs, but say that this wasnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t really Ã¢â‚¬Å“death.Ã¢â‚¬Â I beg to differ. This only logically makes sense if you donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think bugs are actually alive. That makes one wonder how large or complex an organism has to be in order to be considered Ã¢â‚¬Å“alive.Ã¢â‚¬Â I think Jesus throws that logic out the window when he says Ã¢â‚¬Å“unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and diesÃ¢â‚¬Â¦.Ã¢â‚¬Â I realize He was making a spiritual point, but there is no denying that he equivocated the severing of a wheat grain to a type of dying.

I think the idea of an Eden animal kingdom where all the creatures are buddies is mistakenly implied from passages about GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s future kingdom where Ã¢â‚¬Å“the wolf will dwell with the lamb.Ã¢â‚¬Â Perhaps it is concluded that the animal kingdom will be restored to a place of peace that it once enjoyed. First, I might conclude that those passages are more symbolic of spiritual realities than literal ones. Second, just because the animal kingdom may one day enter such a state, doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mean that it was once that way. Some might think a peaceful and quiet animal kingdom in Genesis represents God better than a wild and bloody one. I think this is an inadequate view of God. GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s character isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t fully captured by calm and quiet. GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s nature is also one of wildness and danger Ã¢â‚¬â€œ of smoking mountains and fiery bushes. Of course, on the other hand, you can continue believing that giant squids used their barbed tentacles and sharp beaks to harvest sea fans before Adam sinned.
[FONT=Courier]

[size=3]
I believe IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard both Bob Enyart and Fred Williams argue that theistic evolution is not Biblically sound because it would entail lots of animal death occurring before AdamÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fall.

Glad to hear you are an avid listener.

A couple of quick points:

1) Theistic evolution entails both human and animal death.
2) The Hebrews usage in Genesis 2:17 is properly translated, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Å“dying you shall dieÃ¢â‚¬Â, clearly indicating not just spiritual, but physical death for sinning.
3) Insects donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have Ã¢â‚¬Å“nepheshÃ¢â‚¬Â or breath of life. They donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even feel pain when stepped on, or feel Ã¢â‚¬Å“torturedÃ¢â‚¬Â under a magnifying glass (experiments show dragonflies will even eat themselves unknowingly ).
4) Genesis 1:31 uses a Hebrew word very close to perfection once creation was completed. Hard to explain if animals are tooth and clawing each other.
5) There are many examples of normally carnivorous animals today that survive and even prefer vegetarian diets.

[size=3]
Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Ã‚Â I want to make a few brief comments about what the word Ã¢â‚¬Å“deathÃ¢â‚¬Â means in the Bible, especially in this context.Ã‚Â Overwhelmingly, I believe that when death is referenced to sin, it is talking about a spiritual death Ã¢â‚¬â€œ not a ceasing of bodily functions.Ã‚Â In the same token, the new Ã¢â‚¬Å“lifeÃ¢â‚¬Â of being Ã¢â‚¬Å“born againÃ¢â‚¬Â doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have anything to do with increased bodily functions, but with our spirits being made alive to God and united with Him.Ã‚Â I think this makes sense when you read GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s warning to Adam against eating the fruit Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â If God meant physical death, He was a liar, because Adam didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t physically die on the same day that he ate the fruit.Ã‚Â On the other hand, there was a spiritual aspect of Adam that died that day Ã¢â‚¬â€œ that of relationship with God without boundaries.Ã‚Â God didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t do anything to change the lifespan of man until much later, during NoahÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s days.

You seem to be rather familiar with Genesis and I don't have alot of time, so I won't reference. As I assume you know--Adam and Eve died physically because they no longer had access to the tree of life. Remember God kicked them out of the garden for that specific purpose. The tree of life gave them eternal life until sin-then God made sure they would not continue to have it's fruit--with the intention of physical death. There are redemptive reasons why God did this and "condemned sin in the flesh." Romans 8. But I don't want to get into a doctrinal dissertation.

As far as theistic evos--they believe those animals that died for billions of years before Adam, evolved. So that means Adam had a father, because he was a phylogenic result. So you're not really stating the whole problem by just saying animals died before.

Death had no dominion in the Earth before sin. Adam had dominion over all the earth, over all animals. Death is of Satan, and he had no authority before Adam's sin--after sin, he had the power of death until Christ took the keys of death from him after his passion. But Satan had no dominion until Adam sin. He then became the "god of this world." He certainly was not the "god of this world," before sin. I can give the scriputures for my last statements in Peter, Hebrews and Revelation, but I don't have time right now.

1) Theistic evolution entails both human and animal death.2) The Hebrews usage in Genesis 2:17 is properly translated, Ã¢â‚¬Å“Ã¢â‚¬Å“dying you shall dieÃ¢â‚¬Â, clearly indicating not just spiritual, but physical death for sinning.3) Insects donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have Ã¢â‚¬Å“nepheshÃ¢â‚¬Â or breath of life. They donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t even feel pain when stepped on, or feel Ã¢â‚¬Å“torturedÃ¢â‚¬Â under a magnifying glass (experiments show dragonflies will even eat themselves unknowingly ). 4) Genesis 1:31 uses a Hebrew word very close to perfection once creation was completed. Hard to explain if animals are tooth and clawing each other.5) There are many examples of normally carnivorous animals today that survive and even prefer vegetarian diets.

Fred

Let me clear up a few things. I don't believe that man died before Adam's fall. That's really a separate issue to me - as is the tree of life.

I realize that TE involves a lineage of homo-whatever until "Adam" came along. I don't agree with that.

My main point is that I think animals are a completely different issue. I believe the animal kingdom and Adam were created within a literal 7 days. However, I think it is logically inescapable that animals were eating each other before Adam fell - even if that time period was only 40 or 50 years.

The mere fact that you acknowledge that some creatures were eating insects before the fall is "proof" that Gen. 1:30 doesn't mean that all creatures were only eating plants. (last time I checked insects aren't plants)

To say that a "perfect" Eden meant that animals couldn't be eating each other is to show our limited bias (IMO). Animals eating animals isn't a moral issue - so it wouldn't have made Eden an imperfect place as far as morality goes. The carnivorous food chain is an amazingly balanced and "perfect" system. Why wouldn't God create ferocious lions who chased and killed gazelle's. Even a Christian can marvel at the power and force of this sight. It could have been a reminder to Adam that God is powerful and not to be taken lightly.

Even if there are a few examples of normally carnivorous animals enjoying a vegetarian diet, you'd be hard pressed to convince me that sharks ate seaweed before the fall - or that eagle's used their 4.5 inch talons to snatch apples off a branch. The feet of fish eating birds of prey have perfectly designed claws and rough patches of skin to efficiently snatch fish from the water. Did they only develop this ability after the fall?

To convince me that animals weren't in a struggle for survival before the fall, you'd have to take some of my examples case by case and help me understand why God created some animals with awesome attack abilities and others with awesome defensive abilities. Why would they need them in a perfect world? Why would rhino's need horns? Why would chameleons need camouflage?

Do you know how angler fish mate? The male fish literally fuses to the female fish in order to fertilize her and then dies. There you have it - death as a good thing. Did this mating system arise after the fall?

Why does this matter to me? Only that I want creationists to be using the best and most logical arguments for the truth - and I simply see that the position of no animal death before the fall has too many issues to be true - so I'd rather creationists not use it.

Why does this matter to me?Ã‚Â Only that I want creationists to be using the best and most logical arguments for the truth - and I simply see that the position of no animal death before the fall has too many issues to be true - so I'd rather creationists not use it.

Thank you for posting. I really enjoyed this thread.

I can see good points in what both you and Fred had to say.

I think I said something similar to you in a thread that I started:

"I am not dogmatic about animals dying before the fall, but there are many YE writers who are dogmatic in the other direction. I am not so sure that they should be. It bothers me when people are dogmatic on points that I do not see explicitly taught in the scriptures, so at times YE books bother me because of this. I am not perfect though, so I could be wrong... I am open to correction. "

1) ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s based purely on human reasoning and not a single verse in scripture.
2) Genesis 1:30 is crystal clear that plants and plants only were food for animals. If you argue that the lack of mentioning meat doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t prove they werenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t carnivorous, then this makes the verse inconsistent with the immediately prior verse of manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s vegetarian state, since we know that God does explicitly after the flood permit the eating of meat.
3) ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s worth mentioning again that your exegesis of Genesis 2:17 was wrong, which is critical to your argument.
4) You say you have problems explaining the reasons for God creating the various attack and defense mechanisms. I say it fits GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s character to plan for creationÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fall.

BTW, Noah did make one mistake in planning, by letting the lions off the ark right after the unicorns.

Fred
PS. I never acknowledged that animals ate insects before the fall, but since insects donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have a soul (breath of life) I personally donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see it as an issue or a concern if they did.

Fred,I understand the position of no animal death is widely held by most YEC. ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what I was taught. I respect you as a defender of truth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think there is enough scriptural support for your position.

1.) The truth is that the Bible says very little about the relationship between animals before or after the fall. The only hint of it is in regard to the future. Human reasoning is behind your position as well and requires reading into passages.2.) I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s vegetarian Ã¢â‚¬Å“ordersÃ¢â‚¬Â in Genesis 1:29 has any bearing on vs. 30. Firstly, man isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t naturally equipped with carnivorous hunting abilities Ã¢â‚¬â€œ his design suggests a vegetarian lifestyle that fits the instructions. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s plan was for man to spend their time fellowshipping with each other and with Him Ã¢â‚¬â€œ not spending the day hunting deer with a bow.

Let me ask straight up Ã¢â‚¬â€œ do you believe some animals ate insects before the fall? The anteaters tongue seems perfectly designed for eating ants. The complex echolocation system of bats seems perfectly designed for hunting moths (another example of what would have been a Ã¢â‚¬Å“dormantÃ¢â‚¬Â hunting system if your view is true.)If you think some animals did eat insects, then Gen. 1:30 obviously isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exhaustive of animal diets. (No matter what, it would be hard to imagine that no insects were ever eaten. Some were probably accidentally eaten along with the leaf they were sitting on. Suffice it to say that venus fly traps surely were active insect eaters.)

What Biblical evidence do you use to say that insects donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have nephesh? The fact that they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t feel pain like us? Biologically, insects have breath (they breathe oxygen) and they have blood (Ã¢â‚¬Å“life is in the bloodÃ¢â‚¬Â).

The insects (creeping things) are mentioned right along with the creation of the rest of the animals (Gen 1:25) without any special notations of differences. In fact, both cattle and creeping things are listed under Ã¢â‚¬Å“nephesh chayyahÃ¢â‚¬Â who bring forth after their kind. The only Biblical support IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard is that the creeping things arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mentioned with the rest of the living creatures (nephesh chayyah) that Adam named in Gen. 2:20. But, neither are any sea creatures. Would you therefore conclude that dolphins arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“nephesh chayyahÃ¢â‚¬Â? I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very plain and evident that Genesis 1 and 2 are not exhaustive of all the details of the creation and Eden Ã¢â‚¬â€œ as is my argument with Genesis 1:30.

Outside of scripture, there are too many problems with reading Gen. 1:30 as a complete treatise of animal diet Ã¢â‚¬â€œ vegetarian only. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve mentioned some already, but let me again highlight ocean life as major stumbling block for a vegetarian diet. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve mentioned that sea plants only grow at shallow depths where sunlight reaches them Ã¢â‚¬â€œ so there is size limit on what creatures can swim to get them. I must know if you think blue whales ate sea plants before the fall. I hope you understand how ridiculous and unfeasible that sounds (Bible verse or no Ã¢â‚¬â€œ God has given us reasoning abilities). I hope you realize too that coral are animals and not plants Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and that they eat animals (plankton) and not plants. They eat the tiny organisms that swim by them. IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m no coral expert, but I think they would starve to death if their only option were to eat plants. They canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t swim to get them, and plants canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t swim to them.

3.) Genesis 2:17 isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t critical to my argument. Even if it is including physical death Ã¢â‚¬â€œ there is no denying that the more critical component was spiritual death. Whatever that verse is specifying, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say anything about animals. Nor does Romans 5:12 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ which specifically refers to the death of man. God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t pronounce any judgments or alterations to the order of animals after manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fall. He mentions how plants would be different - but nothing about animals (save the serpant). After the flood, God specifically allows man to eat meat Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it says nothing about changing the diets of animals.

4.) The book of Job presents some interesting passages about the nature of animals.God begins a little discourse about creation in 38:4 Ã¢â‚¬Å“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?Ã¢â‚¬Â God goes on to talk about how complex and wonderful His creation is and the wisdom by which it was made. Shortly after, God mentions the lion who hunts for prey with skillful abilities (38:39). He also mentions the skillful eyes of the hawk who spies its food from afar and feasts upon the blood of its prey (39:29). God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t speak in regret Ã¢â‚¬â€œ He speaks with a sort of boastfulness.

God speaks of Behemoth, who he made purposefully (40:15). God specifically says this creature eats grass Ã¢â‚¬â€œ an aspect of itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s created nature. If God is boasting about his creative nature when describing these creatures, it is a wonder that He would even need to mention the BehemothÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s diet Ã¢â‚¬â€œ if it was a given that all creatures ate plants. He surely doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hint that lions and hawks once ate plants Ã¢â‚¬â€œ all indication is that they are following their original programming and design.Finally, God mentions Leviathan Ã¢â‚¬â€œ of whom it is said Ã¢â‚¬Å“No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse himÃ¢â‚¬Â (41:10). All indication is that Leviathan was created as a wild and fierce creature Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and God is proud of it. Hardly the picture of a calm vegetarian. God seems to imply that the reason it was created so fierce was to highlight the awesome and terrifying power of God Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“who then is he that can stand before Me?Ã¢â‚¬Â

IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll conclude with a final bit of human reasoning. How quickly do you think the Garden would have been stripped bare of vegetation if every creature was using the plants as their sole source of nutrition? Especially if there were no predatory limits on population growth?

First, the fact that God said to Adam that He had given vegetation as food for the animals is an implicit statement of no predation.

And to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.Ã¢â‚¬Â And it was so.

I don't see God amending this, or making exception--it is a decree "and it was so." Creationists are justified in saying that ALL animals before the fall were herbivores.

Second, no blood was shed in sacrifice by anyone until AFTER the fall, and again Adam had dominion over all the earth, so why would the animals not be following suit.

Third, Adam named the animals. None of them ate him.

Fourth, the curse caused obvious biological changes in the woman, the serpent, and plants (weeds). So it is not hard to believe that things such as sharks and anteaters would not have been changed also. I mean God created them, he could change them.

Fifth, predation involves pain and suffering, even if it involves animals. Before sin there was no pain nor suffering. The curse and the fall introduce pain and suffering.

Sixth, in the restored kingdom of God, the lion shall lay down with the lamb--no predation. Paradise fallen in the beginning, paradise restored in the end.

QUOTEAnd to every beast of the earth and to every bird of the heavens and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food.Ã¢â‚¬Â And it was so.

My interpretation: the purpose of God making plants was for food.I don't think that has to be read as a command that all creatures must only eat plants.

Second, no blood was shed in sacrifice by anyone until AFTER the fall, and again Adam had dominion over all the earth, so why would the animals not be following suit.

An animal eating an animal is not a sacrifice. I'm not saying that man killed animals in any way before the fall. Animals are light years apart from man in terms of purpose and emotions. Why would animals behave exactly as man did?

In Job, God says He made ostriches without much reasoning ability. Not all creatures are created equal.

Third, Adam named the animals.Ã‚Â None of them ate him.Ã‚Â

Though I believe some animals were fierce meat eaters, Adam was still in authority over all the earth. It was only after Adam gave up that authority that he had to fear animals.

Fourth, the curse caused obvious biological changes in the woman, the serpent, and plants (weeds).Ã‚Â So it is not hard to believe that things such as sharks and anteaters would not have been changed also.Ã‚Â I mean God created them, he could change them.Ã‚Â

Such a massive and widespread change seems like it would demand at least a small mention in God's judgment. If you say"God didn't spell out everything - He just highlighted the important parts" - I will say exactly, that's the point I'm trying to make.Changes to the woman and the weeds involved a degradation from original purpose - making things worse. If all the defensive and offensive weapons that animals now possess were part of the curse - they make the animal more viable. It is an adding of ability, not the removal of ability. I don't think it equates. Imagine God saying "as punishment for Adam's sin, you lion will now have greater physical prowess, innate stalking and hunting senses, greater sense of smell, and longer teeth and claws..." what a bummer...

Fifth, predation involves pain and suffering, even if it involves animals.Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Before sin there was no pain nor suffering.Ã‚Â The curse and the fall introduce pain and suffering.

Do you think Adam was unable to trip and fall before the "fall" (no pun intended)? Could he scrape his knee? Do you think he was sedate and pensive? Or was he outgoing and explorative - climbing trees, running, and riding horses? The fall didn't bring this type of risk and potential physical pain.

Physical pain is not the same as the suffering that the fall brought - the highlight of which was spiritual suffering. Suffering of animals is definitely not the same as suffering humans - which is why we can lawfully slaughter beef and not people.

Sixth, in the restored kingdom of God, the lion shall lay down with the lamb--no predation.Ã‚Â Paradise fallen in the beginning, paradise restored in the end.

There is going to be a lot about God's kingdom on earth that was never present in the Garden of Eden. The level of perfection at the beginning will hardly compare to the level of perfection in the future. I can think of a good reason why lions and lambs will lie down together in the future - because creation will be remade - and there probably won't be a need to eat! We will have spiritual bodies. I doubt our new bodies will get weary and famished for lack of food. We will be running on spiritual energy - coming straight from God! You can't compare initial creation with future creation - it's like night and day.

It is obvious we will have to agree to disagree. The only thing I'll say is that if you exegete Genesis 1:29,30 you are forced by the wording to conclude that modern meat eaters were originally herbivores--by the word "every" 4 times. Every animal was given every green plant--this includes dogs, sharks, barracudas, tigers, vultures. God gave them plants to eat, which they do not eat now.

If you want to believe something with no scriptural support, that's your perogative, but I think you are entertaining a mix, and giving first base to theistic evolutionists.

I believe the theory of evolution is actually a list of exaggerated extrapolations of observed adaptation. Theistic evolutionists have caved to modern thought in an effort to remedy an apparrent discrepancy between the Bible and science. However they are caving to a lie.

It is obvious we will have to agree to disagree.Ã‚Â The only thing I'll say is that if you exegete Genesis 1:29,30 you are forced by the wording to conclude that modern meat eaters were originally herbivores--by the word "every" 4 times.Ã‚Â Every animal was given every green plant--this includes dogs, sharks, barracudas, tigers, vultures.Ã‚Â God gave them plants to eat, which they do not eat now.

I believe the theory of evolution is actually a list of exaggerated extrapolations of observed adaptation.Ã‚Â Theistic evolutionists have caved to modern thought in an effort to remedy an apparrent discrepancy between the Bible and science.Ã‚Â However they are caving to a lie.

Just so you realize, vs. 30 doesn't say anything about plants being food for fish or the creatures of the sea (if you want to be ultra ultra literal).This is curious because in vs. 28 God makes a list of creatures just like He does in vs. 30, but there He mentions "fish of the sea." "Fish of the sea" are not mentioned in vs. 30. Humm.......

One more undeniable example of why vs. 30 is not a complete treatise on the complete diets of every moving creature: The Dung Beetle!They eat dung, not plants! Please tell me you don't think dung beetles ate something other than dung before Adam's fall. They are God's perfect creatures to keep things sanitary. The garden of Eden wouldn't have been such a paradise if there were huge piles of poo piling up everywhere. Or do you think poo vanished magically before the fall? Since we must sanely say that dung beetles ate dung before the fall to keep things clean, we can truly say that vs. 30 doesn't include all details of diet.

Like I've said, I think there are much better verses to use against theistic evolution.

The problem is that faulty Christian beliefs about creation have led to an increase in evolutionary thinking and embrace.

For example, Darwin, who was taught the creation story - couldn't come to grips with the belief that every creature on earth during his day was exactly the same as when God made them. I know modern creationists don't hold to that - but in Darwin's day, that's what Christian's taught. Darwin didn't see why God would create 6 separate species of finches with its own beak size. I can't fault the church on this point - they didn't have a clue about genetics or epigenetics. However, if the church is dogmatic about a creation issue that isn't explicit in Scripture - it can lead to more damage than good.

If I'm right about animal death before the fall, that is another issue that prompted Darwin to seek other explanations. He didn't understand how God could create creatures with such an appetite for cruelty and death. He couldn't accept that God would create a wasp that injects its young into a caterpillar - which is eventually consumed from the inside out. Darwin probably didn't comprehend the idea of a fallen world - but it goes to show that the church didn't have any place for animal violence in God's initial design. If the church had a teaching that animal death can have a role in the circle of life and organism recycling, then perhaps Darwin wouldn't have been compelled to find an alternative explanation where God couldn't be implicated for creating violence.

Just so you realize, vs. 30 doesn't say anything about plants being food for fish or the creatures of the sea (if you want to be ultra ultra literal).This is curious because in vs. 28 God makes a list of creatures just like He does in vs. 30, but there He mentions "fish of the sea."Ã‚Â "Fish of the sea" are not mentioned in vs. 30.Ã‚Â Humm.......

I'm not sure where any of this goes except to challenge the idea that death is personified in the Bible and will be cast into hell in Revelation, and will be the last enemy of God that He will destroy in the restoration of all things.

Genesis does say every creature in which is the breath of life. Do you think that by that it means every or some? I would say it means every--like straight carnivores tigers, alligators, wolves. These are land animals that changed and you won't get around it by scripture.

One more undeniable example of why vs. 30 is not a complete treatise on the complete diets of every moving creature:Ã‚Â The Dung Beetle!They eat dung, not plants!Ã‚Â Please tell me you don't think dung beetles ate something other than dung before Adam's fall.Ã‚Â They are God's perfect creatures to keep things sanitary.Ã‚Â The garden of Eden wouldn't have been such a paradise if there were huge piles of poo piling up everywhere.Ã‚Â Or do you think poo vanished magically before the fall?Ã‚Â Since we must sanely say that dung beetles ate dung before the fall to keep things clean, we can truly say that vs. 30 doesn't include all details of diet.

Haha . You're talking to a "farmboy." We use to spread manure on a pasture to fertilize it! Cows are the ultimate "pooper," besides maybe elephants. The piles just dry up and ultimately decay--guaranted it helps, and you can burn "cow chips." ANd beside, if everything was eating plants, the dung was just digested plants. Not a strong argument--sorry.

Like I've said, I think there are much better verses to use against theistic evolution.

I would be open to hear this also.

The problem is that faulty Christian beliefs about creation have led to an increase in evolutionary thinking and embrace.

There are faulty beliefs on both sides because people don't study. The evolutionists who are not that educated know a little and even if things are well rebutted or further research shows preliminary findings doubtful, they hold to the old beliefs. A perfect example is the studies on citrate digestion in E.Coli that has been recently discussed in another thread.

There are plenty of Christian people who are educated in science. The ignorant fundamentlist attack is cheap and old. I

The only reason evolution has the hold is that it has the gold. Think about it.

For example, Darwin, who was taught the creation story - couldn't come to grips with the belief that every creature on earth during his day was exactly the same as when God made them.Ã‚Â I know modern creationists don't hold to that - but in Darwin's day, that's what Christian's taught.

You are comparing apples to oranges. Creationists today have taken all the evolution classes that their contemporary counterparts have, but with one difference. They have met the Living Christ--they don't have to apologize for revelation. ANd they have all the oppurtunity in the world to study the evidence--much of which is inconclusive--which leaves macroevolution in the category of postulation trying to pose as fact.

Darwin didn't see why God would create 6 separate species of finches with its own beak size.Ã‚Â I can't fault the church on this point - they didn't have a clue about genetics or epigenetics.Ã‚Â However, if the church is dogmatic about a creation issue that isn't explicit in Scripture - it can lead to more damage than good.

A monk is called the father of modern genetics--Mendel. The only reason "the church" even addresses science is that it has attempted to assault the existence of God. The claim that it is an unintentional result of seeking truth does not remove the fact that it has given modern society a alternate non God reality.

If I'm right about animal death before the fall, that is another issue that prompted Darwin to seek other explanations.Ã‚Â

I'm not going to judge Darwin, but he had a wife who wrote him continually about the importance of revelation, and encouraged him to accept the scripture by fatih. He chose to accept his limited understanding. The church might not have been right about species fixity, but Darwin did the slingshot effect and totally overcompensated his observations--to the point he surmised that our ORIGIN came from small biological steps. This will take a person back to abiogenesis--complete foolishness.

He didn't understand how God could create creatures with such an appetite for cruelty and death.Ã‚Â He couldn't accept that God would create a wasp that injects its young into a caterpillar - which is eventually consumed from the inside out.Ã‚Â Darwin probably didn't comprehend the idea of a fallen world

You hit the nail on the head. He didn't believe the scripture. Look at all the mutation in the genome and tell me death and sickness did not enter the world. This explanation was given long before Darwin was thought of.

but it goes to show that the church didn't have any place for animal violence in God's initial design.

I think Mendel and others wer too busy making their contributions to science to worry about the personal doubts of Darwin. H

If the church had a teaching that animal death can have a role in the circle of life and organism recycling, then perhaps Darwin wouldn't have been compelled to find an alternative explanation where God couldn't be implicated for creating violence.Ã‚Â

The church has had plenty of problems as a whole. Every problem they had could have been solved if had done what Jesus said in the ifrst place. Man is the problem, not God. But He restores and forgives thankfully.

The church might not have been right about species fixity, but Darwin did the slingshot effect and totally overcompensated his observations--to the point he surmised that our ORIGIN came from small biological steps. This will take a person back to abiogenesis--complete foolishness.

I agree, foolish man will seek his own answers - no matter what the church says.

The church's position didn't compel Darwin to seek an evolutionary model - but if the church had a better grasp on all the facts, perhaps Darwin wouldn't have felt compelled to completely jump off the deep end.

Looking in Strong's Hebrew Dictionary at a few Biblical Hebrew names for common animals we find;

Thus we see that the names derive from observable physical characteristics of the animals or their observable behaviors. The cormorant is named due to its diving into the water in pursuit of its prey. And that the names of the lion, night hawk (perhaps an owl) and eagle relate to their violent preying nature ! H. W. F. Gesenius in his Lexicon provides a more graphic description for the eagle; "to tear in pieces with the teeth, to rend (as a bird of prey)".

surely aging and dying is not evolution - I read,somewhere that medical science cannot give a reason for dying - seemingly something or somebody that grows bigger and stronger suddenly judders and falters and fails and falls into entropy - btw eating leaves or fruits or vegetables does not mean the death of the tree or plant - the fruit that Adam ate,it seems,did not kill the tree,so what is it that kills since God and death are incompatible and do not compute and this is found in the Bible so there was no death or poisoned berries or fruits or thorns before the Fall when the whole of creation fell with its Lord and son of God[Adam-Lk.3:38] and the whole of creation now groans[Rmns.8:21-23] - re death and God see Wisdom.1:13-14 and 2:23-24 - twinc

Thus we see that the names derive from observable physical characteristics of the animals or their observable behaviors. The cormorant is named due to its diving into the water in pursuit of its prey. And that the names of the lion, night hawk (perhaps an owl) and eagle relate to their violent preying nature ! H. W. F. Gesenius in his Lexicon provides a more graphic description for the eagle; "to tear in pieces with the teeth, to rend (as a bird of prey)".

I wonder if the words carry the same meaning in Hebrew. I'm not sure if Adam spoke Hebrew though.... maybe English?

Fred,I understand the position of no animal death is widely held by most YEC.Ã‚Â ThatÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s what I was taught.Ã‚Â I respect you as a defender of truth Ã¢â‚¬â€œ but I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think there is enough scriptural support for your position.

1.) The truth is that the Bible says very little about the relationship between animals before or after the fall.Ã‚Â The only hint of it is in regard to the future.Ã‚Â Human reasoning is behind your position as well and requires reading into passages.2.) I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t think manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s vegetarian Ã¢â‚¬Å“ordersÃ¢â‚¬Â in Genesis 1:29 has any bearing on vs. 30.Ã‚Â Firstly, man isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t naturally equipped with carnivorous hunting abilities Ã¢â‚¬â€œ his design suggests a vegetarian lifestyle that fits the instructions.Ã‚Â IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m sure GodÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s plan was for man to spend their time fellowshipping with each other and with Him Ã¢â‚¬â€œ not spending the day hunting deer with a bow.Ã‚Â

Let me ask straight up Ã¢â‚¬â€œ do you believe some animals ate insects before the fall?Ã‚Â The anteaters tongue seems perfectly designed for eating ants.Ã‚Â The complex echolocation system of bats seems perfectly designed for hunting moths (another example of what would have been a Ã¢â‚¬Å“dormantÃ¢â‚¬Â hunting system if your view is true.)If you think some animals did eat insects, then Gen. 1:30 obviously isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exhaustive of animal diets. (No matter what, it would be hard to imagine that no insects were ever eaten.Ã‚Â Some were probably accidentally eaten along with the leaf they were sitting on.Ã‚Â Suffice it to say that venus fly traps surely were active insect eaters.)

What Biblical evidence do you use to say that insects donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t have nephesh? The fact that they donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t feel pain like us?Ã‚Â Ã‚Â Biologically, insects have breath (they breathe oxygen) and they have blood (Ã¢â‚¬Å“life is in the bloodÃ¢â‚¬Â).

God has to create with both eternity and non-eternity laws in mind. A creation that cannot survive after man sins is an imperfect creation and shows that God does not know all. God knowing that man had the choice to sin, His creation would be created to survive under both circumstances.

The insects (creeping things) are mentioned right along with the creation of the rest of the animals (Gen 1:25) without any special notations of differences.Ã‚Â In fact, both cattle and creeping things are listed under Ã¢â‚¬Å“nephesh chayyahÃ¢â‚¬Â who bring forth after their kind. The only Biblical support IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard is that the creeping things arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t mentioned with the rest of the living creatures (nephesh chayyah) that Adam named in Gen. 2:20.Ã‚Â But, neither are any sea creatures.Ã‚Â Would you therefore conclude that dolphins arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t Ã¢â‚¬Å“nephesh chayyahÃ¢â‚¬Â?Ã‚Â I think itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s very plain and evident that Genesis 1 and 2 are not exhaustive of all the details of the creation and Eden Ã¢â‚¬â€œ as is my argument with Genesis 1:30.

Outside of scripture, there are too many problems with reading Gen. 1:30 as a complete treatise of animal diet Ã¢â‚¬â€œ vegetarian only.Ã‚Â IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve mentioned some already, but let me again highlight ocean life as major stumbling block for a vegetarian diet.Ã‚Â IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve mentioned that sea plants only grow at shallow depths where sunlight reaches them Ã¢â‚¬â€œ so there is size limit on what creatures can swim to get them.Ã‚Â I must know if you think blue whales ate sea plants before the fall. I hope you understand how ridiculous and unfeasible that sounds (Bible verse or no Ã¢â‚¬â€œ God has given us reasoning abilities).Ã‚Â I hope you realize too that coral are animals and not plants Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and that they eat animals (plankton) and not plants.Ã‚Â They eat the tiny organisms that swim by them.Ã‚Â IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢m no coral expert, but I think they would starve to death if their only option were to eat plants.Ã‚Â They canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t swim to get them, and plants canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t swim to them.

3.) Genesis 2:17 isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t critical to my argument.Ã‚Â Even if it is including physical death Ã¢â‚¬â€œ there is no denying that the more critical component was spiritual death.Ã‚Â Whatever that verse is specifying, it doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t say anything about animals.Ã‚Â Nor does Romans 5:12 Ã¢â‚¬â€œ which specifically refers to the death of man. God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t pronounce any judgments or alterations to the order of animals after manÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s fall.Ã‚Â He mentions how plants would be differentÃ‚Â - but nothing about animals (save the serpant).Ã‚Â After the flood, God specifically allows man to eat meat Ã¢â‚¬â€œ it says nothing about changing the diets of animals.

4.) The book of Job presents some interesting passages about the nature of animals.God begins a little discourse about creation in 38:4 Ã¢â‚¬Å“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?Ã¢â‚¬ÂÃ‚Â God goes on to talk about how complex and wonderful His creation is and the wisdom by which it was made.Ã‚Â Shortly after, God mentions the lion who hunts for prey with skillful abilities (38:39).Ã‚Â He also mentions the skillful eyes of the hawk who spies its food from afar and feasts upon the blood of its prey (39:29).Ã‚Â God doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t speak in regret Ã¢â‚¬â€œ He speaks with a sort of boastfulness.Ã‚Â

God speaks of Behemoth, who he made purposefully (40:15).Ã‚Â God specifically says this creature eats grass Ã¢â‚¬â€œ an aspect of itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s created nature.Ã‚Â If God is boasting about his creative nature when describing these creatures, it is a wonder that He would even need to mention the BehemothÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s diet Ã¢â‚¬â€œ if it was a given that all creatures ate plants. He surely doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t hint that lions and hawks once ate plants Ã¢â‚¬â€œ all indication is that they are following their original programming and design.Finally, God mentions Leviathan Ã¢â‚¬â€œ of whom it is said Ã¢â‚¬Å“No one is so fierce that he dares to arouse himÃ¢â‚¬Â (41:10).Ã‚Â All indication is that Leviathan was created as a wild and fierce creature Ã¢â‚¬â€œ and God is proud of it. Hardly the picture of a calm vegetarian.Ã‚Â God seems to imply that the reason it was created so fierce was to highlight the awesome and terrifying power of God Ã¢â‚¬â€œ Ã¢â‚¬Å“who then is he that can stand before Me?Ã¢â‚¬ÂIÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ll conclude with a final bit of human reasoning.Ã‚Â How quickly do you think the Garden would have been stripped bare of vegetation if every creature was using the plants as their sole source of nutrition?Ã‚Â Especially if there were no predatory limits on population growth?

You are trying to explain what eternity was with the laws we currently have which are not eternal.

The 6 days of creation were done before sin. What is time before sin? It's eternal. So can the laws that we currently have explain how eternity works? Of course not.

In eternity, Does God eat? Does God have to eat in order to survive? If God had to eat then He has an eternal flaw, understand? Eating is only for pleasure in eternity. It is not a requirement to go on existing. So all living things created in the eternal 6 days did not require food. And because death cannot exist in eternity, all created life ate, if they ate, vegetation only.

Question: If you did not have to eat to survive, how often would you eat for pleasure when it really did not matter if you ate? If you did not ever get hungry, why would you eat 3 meals a day? Why would you kill an animal if you did not have to in order to survive?

Eternity cannot be eternal if there are physical requirements (food) in order to survive.